3 ms·

Instead of ad-hominem, why don't you point out the flaws in his paper?

by jeremyt 12y ago

clsec 12y ago
The study only covers methane leakage and says nothing of the chemical slurries used nor the groundwater/aquifer leakage of said slurries. IMO, the Ars article is reverse FUD.
- briandear 12y ago
  The whole global warming hysteria is FUD.
  - rmxt 12y ago
    >The whole global warming hysteria is FUD. Where does global warming come into play with respect to the GP post or the submitted article at all? Though the topics are closely related, the submitted article isn't attempting to spread ideas about anthropogenic climate change. You're attempting to rally the troops to fight an "enemy" or "hysteria" that isn't present in this discussion. Aside from any concerns about climate change, there are perfectly valid issues to be raised about the impacts of chemical slurries on freshwater supplies -- issues that you've completely disregarded in your haste to dismiss climate change. Following the money trail, like the head comment in this thread suggested, seems to be a valid line of thinking both ways, whether it leads to Gore or a Koch. EDIT: The one mention in the Ars' article that touches upon climate change is merely a mention of methane as a "greenhouse gas." If that gets you riled up, then maybe taking it down a notch would be more conducive to discussion.
    - jeremyt 12y ago
      Well, then you didn't read the whole article. The whole last paragraph is about methane's contribution to greenhouse gases and its effect on fossil fuel policy. Seriously, if it wasn't for the greenhouse impact and its connection to climate policy, what would be the point of the article...or the paper?
ptaffs 12y ago
The ars piece opens with "How leaky is shale gas production? Good news—fracking's probably not as leaky as earlier studies suggested.", it continues without much analysis, and my weariness is that it doesn't really address that these studies and findings and reports are very hard to trust on face (or any) value as this topic or industry has a history of funding convenient research and, as with this ars piece, reproduction of the reports as news headlines. I would like to know whether fracking is bad. I'm old enough to remember being told in the 70s that oil would soon run out. Both the 70s and the deadline have passed and now there's so much fossil fuel it's a danger and we should not have the Keystone pipeline because we'll never survive the carbon release. The 70s also bought us the forecast of another ice-age, with hindsight we should take it all with a pinch of salt, but instead we brand each other science deniers or otherwise.

Instead of ad-hominem, why don't you point out the flaws in his paper?

by jeremyt 12y ago

Instead of ad-hominem, why don't you point out the flaws in his paper?

clsec 12y ago

The study only covers methane leakage and says nothing of the chemical slurries used nor the groundwater/aquifer leakage of said slurries. IMO, the Ars article is reverse FUD.

briandear 12y ago
The whole global warming hysteria is FUD.
- rmxt 12y ago
  >The whole global warming hysteria is FUD. Where does global warming come into play with respect to the GP post or the submitted article at all? Though the topics are closely related, the submitted article isn't attempting to spread ideas about anthropogenic climate change. You're attempting to rally the troops to fight an "enemy" or "hysteria" that isn't present in this discussion. Aside from any concerns about climate change, there are perfectly valid issues to be raised about the impacts of chemical slurries on freshwater supplies -- issues that you've completely disregarded in your haste to dismiss climate change. Following the money trail, like the head comment in this thread suggested, seems to be a valid line of thinking both ways, whether it leads to Gore or a Koch. EDIT: The one mention in the Ars' article that touches upon climate change is merely a mention of methane as a "greenhouse gas." If that gets you riled up, then maybe taking it down a notch would be more conducive to discussion.
  - jeremyt 12y ago
    Well, then you didn't read the whole article. The whole last paragraph is about methane's contribution to greenhouse gases and its effect on fossil fuel policy. Seriously, if it wasn't for the greenhouse impact and its connection to climate policy, what would be the point of the article...or the paper?

ptaffs 12y ago

The ars piece opens with "How leaky is shale gas production? Good news—fracking's probably not as leaky as earlier studies suggested.", it continues without much analysis, and my weariness is that it doesn't really address that these studies and findings and reports are very hard to trust on face (or any) value as this topic or industry has a history of funding convenient research and, as with this ars piece, reproduction of the reports as news headlines. I would like to know whether fracking is bad. I'm old enough to remember being told in the 70s that oil would soon run out. Both the 70s and the deadline have passed and now there's so much fossil fuel it's a danger and we should not have the Keystone pipeline because we'll never survive the carbon release. The 70s also bought us the forecast of another ice-age, with hindsight we should take it all with a pinch of salt, but instead we brand each other science deniers or otherwise.